Playing Starfield (shit game btw) had me thinking about how you'd actually design a gun for functionality in space infantry combat.
As far as I understand, most guns now would work fine in space, since the propellant has it's own oxidizer. The main issue will come to weight and overheating.
A lot of guns in starfield are caseless, which makes sense if you're trying to save weight- but it makes no sense if we're considering the lack of radiators. In a vacuum, guns would overheat way faster. Ejecting brass shells is actually a great way of helping remove some of that heat. Of course, if you're fighting in orbit then maybe you don't want the hazard of shell casings flying around in the upper atmosphere. Maybe caseless rounds with some sort of water cooling/radiator on the gun, or with the gun integrated into an existing cooling system on your space suit would make sense?
Skip the bullets and use modified underwater spear guns that work via pressurized gases.
Because airguns are trash. You get maybe 10 shots of merely acceptable performance out of a full tank, and you've vented a lot of gas. If you outfitted your theoretical space soldier with an airgun, and then outfitted a second soldier with a traditional rifle with the same number of shots, the second would be lighter, have a more capable and reliable weapon, and would not experience any significant issues from the temperature even if they fired every round they carried in a burst because the round count would be so low.
The heat dissipation is impacted, but the thermal mass of the weapon is still the same.
>why play games you think are bad?
You have to play something to form an opinion on it and he didn't say that he is still playing it now that he's formed an opinion. Just that playing it, whenever he did, made him wonder about space guns.
Not that anon and while I still somewhat agree with you the vacuum of space means your same gas tank gets a lot more kick out of its capacity, but yeah, traditional firearms are still going to outperform them.
>the vacuum of space means your same gas tank gets a lot more kick out of its capacity,
NTA but it goes from a ΔP of ~3000psi to ~3014.7psi. Thats half a percent more kick. Maybe a little more due to compression effects but not a lot more.
>shit game btw
why do people engage with shit media?
Because nowadays if you say you read a review saying the game was shit you'd get inundated with swaths of retards saying you don't have a single original thought in your head. Yet if you play said game yourself and come to your own conclusion that the game is shit you're suddenly retarded for playing something so obviously bad. I mean this guy wrote a review saying it was bad, so why play it? See the paradox that's been created?
what if you just don't care about new games? I will also point out
>he's apparently playing it even though he thinks it's shit
THAT is the part I'm asking about. why play games you think are bad?
NTA but I honestly don't know if you're fucking with people or can't comprehend there was a time where you had a short summary or a bro's recommendation for the majority of the media you consumed.
This informal system became reviews in magazines and later the internet, who's writers then sold their souls for paid reviews not realizing eventually the companies would just make their own reviews and market shit w/ little repercussion.
However some people still just find things out instead of watching the entire play through on the internet, hence he's playing a shit game he himself discovered was shit.
>However some people still just find things out instead
are they too retarded to recognize the trend that, very probably, the group that brought you the steaming dogturd that was FO76 which was a followup to the steaming dogturd that was FO4, almost certainly made another steaming dogturd?
you seem to be obsessed with having an opinion on
>OmG NEWGAYME!
which just doesn't seem to make sense to me. who fucking cares? giving money/validation to modern game makers is negative behavior.
I haven't played any games in X series, but it was made by Company A which has previously made things I enjoy.
It is getting negative reviews online, but I also saw somewhere that Company A has not made vocal support towards this week's crisis and the first two reviews are titled Company A is Bigot.
Company A has previously fucked me w/ shitty games (2 of 3 strikes perhaps), but I have enough vested interest and appreciation for their previous works that I will temporarily suspend my apathy towards the modern vg industry.
I also have enough disposable income to afford this game while also retaining the ability to return or sell it should I have a physical copy.
Now, I can play the game. If it's not good in 30 minutes, I'll play for another hour and make my final decision from there.
Wow this a fun game, let me keep playing./This was bad, it is time to return it.
The only other alternatives are nothing which for hobbies is a matter of finding new hobbies or trusting any form of marketing, which lol, that's how you get to here.
I have bought maybe 2 games in the last year, one which I oversold myself on and one which kills the time and has fulfilled at least the $60 I spent.
I refuse to support EA however because those sluts can burn in hell for killing Titanfall 3.
>THAT is the part I'm asking about. why play games you think are bad?
Because I don't know it's bad until I play it, retard
Because they're morons that haven't moved on to VR gaming. It is a different game when you have to actually peek around the corner and align an iron sights picture with a target. It is a different game when you're swinging a sword with your arm and experiencing a visral panic as people attack you back.
>VR gaming
Man I wish I could spend money to achieve this
would prob also need less propellant (since no air resistance) = less heat
could also try to isolate the casing from the metal of the gun to reduce heat transfer, and it would have to be anodized to avoid cold welding
Co2 guns are already able to achieve pretty decent velocities. Considering you'd need pressurized gas already to power stuff like thrusters, would it not just make more sense to go down that route?
Or maybe making guns out of some sort of composite material that doesn't transfer heat well.
Not transferring heat is exactly the problem. If your gun isn't radiating heat that means it's building up heat, and eventually it will reach the point of mechanical failure.
If the heat never transfers into the gun itself it shouldn't be a problem though right? Like if your gun is made out of some high tech ceramics that don't conduct heat well, the ceramics aren't going to melt
I don't think you understand how thermal energy works.
Wouldn't it just be like touching a hot pan with oven mitts? The hot gasses just wouldn't transfer any heat to the barrel
the heat still has to go somewhere, to some reservoir, it doesn't just disappear.
You're expelling hot gasses from the gun. I'd assume the gas would just expand and disperse into the vacuum
The heat can radiate, which doesn't need a thermally conductive medium.
>the ceramics aren't going to melt
First of all, yes they will. Second, long before melting, they will crack. Third, even if they don't, the rest of the gun probably won't be happy that your barrel is now up to welding temp. Fourth, I hope you enjoy being target painted by every hostile for thousands of miles because your gun is putting out as much IR as a ship's engine plume.
How are you planning to keep your co2 warm? Space is several hundred degrees kelvin below the freezing point of co2. That liquid co2 in your bottle will freeze in seconds unless it's heated.
>have a small regular gun attached to the C02 bottle
>fire it when C02 gets cold
>gun heats up the bottle
simple as a pimple
>Space is several hundred degrees kelvin below the freezing point of co2. That liquid co2 in your bottle will freeze in seconds unless it's heated.
Bruh. Space is a vacuum. You're basically in a giant thermos and the only way to cool the CO2 is via radiation which is slow as fuck at those temperatures.
CO2 guns are dumb, but not because the bottle will freeze in seconds.
If you're actually in microgravity and you're in a serious science fiction settin--
>Shitslop
Oh alright well here anyways:
>Recoiling action and barrel with a sufficiently strong spring to return it to battery
>Big enough muzzle brake that provides a net zero or a little pull or push for the total recoil impulse
Now go fuck off because the heat management part gets into serious science fiction that Mass Slopfectors and Starslop players like yourself wouldn't appreciate anyways.
>Now go fuck off because the heat management part gets into serious science fiction that Mass Slopfectors and Starslop players like yourself wouldn't appreciate anyways.
Sounds like you just don't know how to handle it and are mad
More like you're not worth the minutes of typing about phase change heat management and infrared radiation being the only real ways to manage heat in space. Pearls before swine.
Why do you think I included radiators in my post you retard? Starfield's guns are retarded and I'm curious how a real gun designed to function in space would integrate radiators or other cooling technology
radiators without an air reservoir around them wouldn't really do much cooling, certainly not fast enough. some sort of fluid cooling needs to be explored.
action and barrel with a sufficiently strong spring to return it to battery
For what purpose?
Delay recoil impulse (to allow for the muzzle brake to do its work) but the spring shouldn't provide enough resistance to allow too much of the elongated remaining impulse to thrust too much. If you're shooting a gun in microgravity you're fighting bodily momentum and moment of inertia (rotation) with your thrusters which means you're burning delta-v. Minimizing that impulse as much as possible is the goal because you're either trying not to spin across space (shoulder firing/off CoG by countering with thrusters/RCS) or be pushed off (pulsing thrusters every often to zero out unwanted gains).
Again this kind of conversation is wasted on a Starslop player.
Alternate take on the spring: No spring but have a gas reservoir that taps off and holds some of the cycling gases to vent out through angled vents to return the action forward and act as the "spring" of the action. Reliability probably will take a shit for this type of action but the concept here is that the action is practically free moving linearly, relying on the muzzle brake to stop it from bottoming out. The gas reservoir acts to cycle it back and also to zero out momentum transfer. What recoil thrust occurs here is effectively sliding friction transfer of the action. Tolerances would be a bitch given the temperatures involved and thermal expansion (even low thermal expansion materials will have to deal with stupid cold + resist embrittlement and then go all the way up to hot for sustained use, thermal management or not given the delta)
Again, pearls before swine of casuals.
The order that forces are applied makes no difference to the resulting vector in a case like this. A heavier spring also doesn't delay the transfer of the energy from firing at all, it does the opposite (a less stiff spring transfers energy more slowly than an equivalent force stuffer spring). Your post just reveals you as a physicslet and mechanicslet.
>heavier spring
You misinterpret the concept of the spring being low strength enough just to cycle the action while the muzzle brake does most of the velocity reduction of the cycling mass but you do you with your projection.
You're just describing a spring that doesn't bottom out. That's got zero to do with "making time for the muzzle brake to reduce velocity" because that's not a thing because the order that forces are applied doesn't change the resulting vector. Explain what "the order that forces are applied doesn't change the resulting vector" means, please.
Lower spring strength means less force transfer and it'd be a long travel action with a progressive spring. The least compressed state would have the lowest force, if only to ensure action lockup on return and to minimize force transfer from when the propellant gases haven't interacted with the muzzle brake. The spring is there to function to bring the action back into battery more than anything. I don't expect propellant to be absolutely consistent burn to burn and thus the brake should be designed to counter less than 100% of the recoil impulse overall and the actual curve of the recoil impulse is designed to have as little up front and dump it as a long delayed flattened pulse towards the end.
I think you can't visualize the long recoil action that's going on here where the spring is effectively holding the barrel-bolt assembly against the stop for the sake of accuracy. Ideally I'd want to not even have the spring force there and to cut it while instead relying on the return momentum to trip the lock up so initial travel is only fighting against recoiling mass. The brake slows down the coupled assembly just as it starts acting on the spring and acts as part of the unlocking action once the bolt is past the unlock position.
>Lower spring strength means less force transfer
No it doesn't. Everything else that follows from this in your post is wrong as a result or equally fundamentally retarded. Special mention for fundamentally retarded to your idea of a brake offsetting 100% of the recoil.
I'll ask one last time and I'll try phrasing it differently and more explicitly for you.
1. The final vector of a system to which you apply several forces does not depend on the order in which you apply those forces. *For systems with the attributes of this one under newtonian physics.
2. It necessarily follows from 1 that the duration over which the forces are applied also does not influence the final vector, since duration is just the distribution of the same force over time (a continuous distribution of the "order").
3. Thus, how can it matter how long a spring is? How can any spring remove energy from a system (reduce the scalar component) or redirect that energy (change the direction component)?
4. Given 1-3, how can it matter what parts of the spring's cycle overlap with the operation of the brake or how offset they are or the order in which they are offset to the delta v cost of a shot, since we know that in all cases the final vector (the amount and direction we need to spend delta v to offset) will be identical?
Gyrojet, next question please and thank you.
Ceaseless is bad, it’s maximum heat transfer to the host gun. A cased projectile is already dumping heat energy out of the gun. Liquid cooling and regular radiators are probably fine for normal infantry rifles, but for high ROF weapons, you’re going to want an ablative or spray coolant system. Some sort of thrust compensating system to prevent user rotation would probably be necessary for microgravity usage. Thermal sights would be great if you can make one that doesn’t white out when pointed in the general direction of the sun or an active rocket exhaust.
>space infantry combat
Simple: don't. Infantry isn't going to deploy in the vacuum of space any more than they do in the sky or the sea. Infantry belong on the ground. The ground is something worth fighting for, so not a barren rock in the middle of literally nowhere, but a planet people can live on. Which assumes an earthlike atmosphere.
For space combat, forget gay lasers and X-wings. Think a steel pipe with a nuclear machine gun. Now imagine that steel pipe bombarding any stupid bases set up on an unlivable planet. Why send infantry there? If some dudes are in a carefully managed space station in an utterly hostile atmosphere, just blow them up from orbit. Save the infantry fighting for shit you can't afford to blow up, like a livable planet where guns work just fine.
Most space combat will take place between AI controlled systems at long distances, but there's still going to be a niche for firearms, similar to how underwater firearms are a thing.
The only thing I could think of is boarding actions, but it really shouldn't matter once the hypothetical breachers are on board.
That's also assuming there even will be boarding actions. Think about what we're talking about, space is already an inherently hostile environment to life, and now we add space ships that are lobbing multiple nukes at each other. Any human going into that is toast.
Boarding also seems very unlikely just for the reason that either docking or entry via spacewalk requires a cooperative target. If they don't want you to board they'll just send the station into a rotation that's too fast for you to dock with. If you're boarding it's because the opposing target has surrendered and is at your mercy.
Boarding actions, covert action, even civilian carry for self defense. You might not see much military use, but get enough civilians out in space and you'll get space murders. How do you prevent a mutiny on board your space ship? Space guns.
Optional recoil-negation via rear-ejecting propellant or some other system (by default enabled, disabled if you have EVA gear that can fire thrusters to compensate). Some sort of superior cooling solution or maybe muzzle energy is just lower due to small arms only being used at knife fighting range anyway.
System water cooling or a chassis construction where basically every part can be hotswapped as needed to deal with waste heat.
planetes actually handled this pretty well i think
also made for some sick space melee weapon designs
they still had guns but i don't remember the specifics
I used to think the guns in Starfield were alright, but I saw a video the other day that analysed them and realised that they all have major design issues.
>The double barrel shotty has no trigger
>Pretty much all the guns have magazines that wouldn't fit their stated ammo capacity
>The 50cal sniper magazine literally says it has 7 rounds on the side, when in game it only has 5
>All the pistols either have no cycling mechanism, or the ones they do have wouldn't actually take rounds from the magazine to the chamber
>The pump action shotgun pumps forward. This actually closes the ejection port while an empty shell is noclipped through it
>Many guns have artificial fire rate limits
>The shotgun pistol has a cycling slide that would punch you in the jaw while ADSing
>Half the guns in the game use 7.77mm, despite having wildly different damage values and in the case of the Kodama, it's firing a visibly different flechette round
>The minigun has an artificial firing delay for no reason
>Most guns have square barrels even though they fire circle shaped ammo
Bethesda tried a bit harder than last time, but they still have gun designers who don't use guns.
cool
How did Obsidian manage it with New Vegas, despite being turboliberal?
?feature=shared
Best gun in starfield
In the future? Drone AI aimed guns like star trek where the computer does all the work and you just provide a general intent and lethal authorization.
AI can identify targets, aim and fire faster than you can. You're there just to validate the AI's decisions.
I have a friend who is developing a sci-fi game. She made this by mashing an M9 slide onto a grach frame, and making a semi SRO looking red dot.
It is a hammer fired .45ACP with 15 round magazines. What's the verdict?
Does she have a penis?
He should ditch the integrated optic ahead of the rear irons. Maybe add some contouring to better blend the two halves once the obstruction reveals how awkwardly they fit together.
And ditch one of the redundant safteys.
Most realistic space gun design so far.
watch out guys we have a wikipedia expert here
.22's and grenades. in lower/zero gravity you dont need to worry about bullet drop or losing velocity, and simply puncturing a suit would be extremely bad, if not catastrophic. low recoil so easy to control your movement/rotation, and just dump drum mags of pointy bullets at many, many times the distance you could shoot on earth.
same idea with the hand grenade. youd probably be able to throw a grenade on the moon about 2-3 miles unassisted. get yourself a potato cannon, or a slingshot, and now your lobbing grenades tens of miles away, with fragmentation that travels EXTREMELY far.
not on the moon, but in the pure vacuum of space: crossbows, arrows tipped with explosives. no heat signature, no muzzle flash, no sound report, fire and forget. range: hundreds of miles. a compound bow can fire arrows at 200 mph. grenade shrapnel travels at roughly 16,404 feet per second, and would be dangerous hundreds of thousands of miles.
while it would be extremely unlikely to get hit by shrapnel 500 miles away from a regular hand grenade exploding, the risk would not be 0.
>.22
And what do you do on Day 2 after they realize that soft armor and the systems already in the suit invalidates your strategy?
Good, fuck off and stop polluting the thread with your whinging if you're not going to be on-topic.
spacewalk suits already weigh about 280 pounds, and only gets you 8 and a half hours life support, which probably depletes a shitload faster if your doing something strenuous, like combat, i imagine there will be some technical difficulties in adding head to toe armor plating to every soldier, on top of the weaponry. an average us soldier carries 60-120 pounds of gear, and plate armor is about 30-50 pounds. so, 500-600 pounds per soldier. so assuming a one off, suicide mission thats expected to last less then say, 5 hours with no hope of return, you could probably cram about 150 of them onto a new glenn rocket. 20 million dollars per launch.
but assuming that we just invent some magical weightless head to toe armor that doesnt make an incredibly bulky and unwieldy space suit even more fucking bulky and unwieldy, then spear guns. with nets on the end. catch them in a net, then attach your end, to a rocket. point at nearest sun, planet, or nothing, your choice.
just to elaborate on how shitty space suits are, a space walk almost had a bad end because someone got...a teary eye. without gravity, tear drops dont...drop. they just stay on the eyeball, perfectly distributed over the entire eye, and virtually blinds you. you cant exactly open up your helmet in space, and wipe it away.
>A lot of guns in starfield are caseless
That's just because they were too fucking lazy to fix their reload animations.
>MS-exclusive ends up being a shit game
you have nobody to blame but yourself.
>>MS-exclusive ends up being a shit game
Not this time. If anything they paid them an extra year to ""polish"" the game. If it released last year it would be a bigger cluster fuck that FO76. This is ALL on Bethesda and it's clear the actual talent left a long time ago
>shit game btw
I like it. Whats wrong with Skyrim in space?
>Whats wrong with Skyrim in space?
Because Skyrim was 12 years ago and has kept being re-released multiple times ever since.
Starfield isn't anything like Skyrim if you look at the gameplay loop. There's no act of moving from point A to B, and seeing all this stuff in between as you traverse though the world map. In Starfield, every journey is a series of loading screens. There's little opportunity for distractions to arise.
Lore doesn't center around a battle that makes little sense involving poor libertarians hopping into their advanced heavily armed spaceships. Constant complaints about xenomorphs/mechs instead of dropping bombs. Using the spaceships made me miss elite dangerous, but generally thought mechanics were inferior in Starfield. Shooter mechanics were standard and exploration/scanning got painful after a while.
Skyrim was you burned down this village/you burned down that village. Haven't played it in a decade without heavy modding, but combat wasn't great. Exploration was just going to the next objective and something could happen on the way.
>
A lot of guns in starfield are caseless, which makes sense if you're trying to save weight- but it makes no sense if we're considering the lack of radiators. In a vacuum, guns would overheat way faster.
Would make sense if you combined it with some kind of replaceable heatsink,